Secretary of State for the Home Department v Yan Bossade

Part 5A of the Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Act 2002 does not displace the established two-stage analysis of Article 8 claims. A tribunal ordinarily decides first whether the substantive conditions in the Immigration Rules are met. The statutory public-interest considerations apply directly only when deciding proportionality under Article 8(2).

In foreign-criminal deportation cases, the Rules are a complete code. Part 5A therefore applies directly at the proportionality stage under paragraph 398, or paragraph 390A on revocation, but not when deciding the substantive conditions in paragraphs 399 or 399A. It may nevertheless inform the meaning of terms in those Rules.

Paragraph 399A requires cumulative satisfaction of its conditions. Social and cultural integration is a qualitative present-tense assessment, and very significant obstacles to integration abroad demand more than an absence of close family ties.

Secretary of State for the Home Department v Yan Bossade concerned the proposed deportation of a Democratic Republic of Congo national who had entered the United Kingdom aged four, later obtained indefinite leave to remain, and received a 42-month sentence for robbery and related offences.

A First-tier Tribunal allowed his appeal under Articles 3 and 8 and paragraph 276ADE of the Immigration Rules. The Upper Tribunal set that decision aside for error of law and remade the appeal. Following new country guidance, it found that the claimant faced no relevant risk on return and that the case depended entirely on Article 8.

The principal issues were whether he met paragraph 399A of the Immigration Rules and how Part 5A of the Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Act 2002 operated alongside the Rules.

1. The claimant’s appeal was dismissed. He did not qualify under paragraph 399A and his circumstances were not very compelling circumstances for paragraph 398.

2. The Tribunal held that Part 5A had not changed the established two-stage approach to Article 8. First, the tribunal determines whether the substantive conditions in the Immigration Rules are met. Secondly, where proportionality under Article 8(2) arises, it determines the public-interest question and must have regard to the Part 5A considerations.

3. For foreign criminals, the deportation Rules form a complete code. Thus Part 5A has no direct role in deciding whether the substantive conditions of paragraphs 399 or 399A are met. It applies directly when paragraph 398 requires the full proportionality assessment of whether very compelling circumstances outweigh the public interest in deportation. Part 5A may indirectly inform the meaning of relevant terms in the Rules, but it does not add further substantive conditions to them.

4. Paragraph 399A(b) requires present social and cultural integration, both elements being necessary. It is a qualitative inquiry. Lawful residence, education, family connections and English-language ability may support integration. Serious and persistent offending, anti-social conduct and substantial periods in prison may show that integration has been broken and not regained.

5. Paragraph 399A(c) requires very significant obstacles to integration in the receiving country. Lack of close family ties, language difficulties and absence of adult experience there may be significant obstacles, but do not necessarily meet that demanding standard. On the facts, the claimant was a young and able-bodied adult who could learn the relevant language, use acquired skills and obtain support while re-establishing himself.

6. Applying sections 117B and 117C at the proportionality stage, the public interest in deportation was strong because of the seriousness and repeated nature of the offending. The claimant had not established financial independence and had neither a qualifying partner nor child. Deportation was proportionate.

• Upper Tribunal (Immigration and Asylum Chamber): Set aside the First-tier Tribunal's decision for error of law on 28 January 2015, then remade the decision and dismissed the claimant's appeal.
• First-tier Tribunal: In a determination dated 24 June 2014, allowed the claimant's appeal under Articles 3 and 8 and paragraph 276ADE of the Immigration Rules.